RC3 pushes for neighborhood character preservation in Leavenworth Comprehensive plan

LEAVENWORTH —  Residents Coalition of Chelan County (RC3) and members of the Planning Commission disagree over policy language in the city’s draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan, which the city council will consider for adoption in October.

During a Sept. 22 public hearing, RC3 called for more language to protect the city’s small-town character, existing housing and open space. Planning commissioners said the plan already provides broad policy direction on those issues while balancing the needs of housing affordability and future growth.

The city's 2026 Comprehensive Plan update, which is mandated by the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), revises nine chapters of the plan to comply with new state laws, accommodate updated population allocations, and integrate a new Climate Resilience element. The city is required to update the plan by Dec. 31, 2026.

In a written statement prior to the Sept. 22 hearing, RC3 said the plan did not reflect the public input received from the city’s visioning process.

RC3 proposed four additional policies to minimize development impacts on existing neighborhoods and preserve their character; preserve existing neighborhoods and housing; explore inclusionary zoning to support affordable housing; and require private development to contribute to common open space or recreational facilities to offset impacts on existing parks.

The letter also addressed prior comments made by city staff and planning commissioners regarding RC3’s input.

During the Aug. 5 Planning Commission meeting, Senior Planner Celeste Barry said state directives discourage neighborhood preservation language that could create barriers to more affordable housing development. She also raised concerns that such language can have implications for preserving the racial makeup of neighborhoods.

RC3 disagreed, arguing that the state directives did not apply to Leavenworth because of its population size and that affordable housing and neighborhood character goals were not mutually exclusive.

RC3 also disputed Planning Commissioner Simon Farivar’s claims that it had not participated in the planning process. The group said it submitted comments in October 2024 and again in March 2026, saying its concerns were acknowledged but not incorporated.

Staff provided a written response to RC3’s comments, stating that the draft plan addresses many of RC3’s concerns through existing housing, neighborhood design and parks policies. It added that middle housing has been a “council directed action item for several years,” even though it was not state mandated.

Staff added that inclusionary zoning had been discussed, but additional funding and further study was needed for it to proceed. It also noted that RC3’s examples of inclusionary zoning were of cities with larger populations.

Lastly, staff said additional requirements for all private development to provide parks or open space would require a nexus study and council direction. However, the draft plan already included a policy to strengthen the subdivision code and establish development standards for common open space or recreation in new subdivisions. They proposed a minor change to encompass zoning code and large multifamily developments in the policy.

RC3 representative Lisi Ott restated the four proposals before the council during the Sept. 22 hearing.

“I'm asking you not to ignore the majority of Leavenworth residents…and to be a responsive governing body,” said Ott.

Following Ott’s comments, Planning Commissioner Simon Farivar reiterated frustration over RC3’s absence during the commission’s discussions, characterizing the group’s input as a “drop and go method.”

He stood behind the plan, explaining that it was the best direction forward within the constraints of reality.

“When you get down to the planning, to the nuts and bolts of it, we have to define these things, and the definitions become very gray,” said Farivar. “The idea is solid…Legislating it into action is extremely tough.”

Planning Commissioner Alison Miller added that the plan is not code and should not be treated as such.

“It's a guiding document that is more about creating opportunity and ideas and goals…We do not want to create limitations,” said Miller.

Speaking independently of both groups, resident Ron Duncan said he didn’t view RC3’s suggestions as regulations. Rather, they reflected a direction preferred by the community.

“I think that they were reflecting the will of the people, and they should be in the Comp Plan. It's not an attack on the Planning [Commission], which it seems like it was perceived as,” said Duncan.

No council discussion followed the public hearing. Instead, the council is scheduled to discuss and vote on the plan during the Oct. 13 meeting. The timing frustrated council member Zeke Reister, who felt that discussion should occur immediately after public comments, with time to digest feedback before taking action.

“That’s when we expect to pass this thing, and that’s kind of late in the game actually to make comments that might have an impact,” said Reister.

Mayor Carl Florea said it has been done before, but it was important to ensure that the public hearing and council discussion did not overlap. For future meetings, city staff said they could include council discussion as a special agenda item with no action to follow.

Taylor Caldwell: 509-433-7276 or taylor@ward.media